Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-16-2017, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
3,614 posts, read 1,736,140 times
Reputation: 2740

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sactown4 View Post
The increases were going to be 7% for next year. That doesn't look broken.
Millions of people have insurance because of the ACA.
People (Republicans included) have been fighting to keep the ACA, and it now enjoys great popularity.
Millions of people have insurance because millions of others pay for it for them. That's not a Republic. That's socialism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2017, 02:41 PM
 
52,431 posts, read 26,624,120 times
Reputation: 21097
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
The state and local seats have very little to do with Federal.
Think again. I'm including the US Senate and US House.

And in all those state houses, they will be redrawing the maps after 2020. Very very bad for the Democrat party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2017, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,143 posts, read 10,711,121 times
Reputation: 9799
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilcart View Post
cool story bro. But that does not change the facts.

1 trump did this
2 trump could have just gone to congress, but he has spent his days arguing with everyone from the nations allies to his allies and everyone in between.


Of course this is what happens when a know nothing angry man gets office, he struts around breaking things, because he simply does not know how to build. Ask yourself Jim, what has Trump built since gaining power? NO MAJOR NEW legislation in over 9 months? No nothing, just shouting and smashing
Cry me a river. 95% of the country decided between Trump and Hillary, but I wasn't one of them. I opted to vote for a candidate I actually wanted, rather than one that was selected for me by my party affiliation. I don't like Trump any more than I liked Obama, but logic should tell you that if the subsidies had been appropriated legally this conversation would not exist because Trump would have been unable to touch them. Is it a crappy move to cut the subsidies? Yeah, it is. But at most Trump only gets half the blame, and that's being generous to the Democrats that were behind this cluster#%$& of a law to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2017, 02:42 PM
 
13,954 posts, read 5,623,969 times
Reputation: 8613
Trump's EO does three things:
  • Ends illegal payments to insurance companies that are not authorized by the ACA
  • Loosens the requirements of what plans must cover to make it easier for people, small companies, etc to get cheaper plans by only paying for things they want instead of some blanket federal mandate
  • begins the process of allowing insurance to be sold across state lines.
All of these things constitute more freedom, not less.

The payments Obama was making to insurers violates the ACA, the separation of powers and the last federal curt to decide on the matter. That it took Trump this long to wave the pen on that nonsense is annoying, but he is finally getting around to it. The payments to insurers under section 1402 were never supposed to come from Congress, and no authorization for that spending has ever come from the Legislative Branch. Basically, for Trump to be doing his whole "faithful execution of the laws" bit in his job description, he should have ended those unauthorized subsidies the day he took office.

The loosening of requirements is a huge win for the average consumer. I should not be required to carry coverage that I do not want. I do not need any of the mandatory coverage for children, female stuff, or ay of the drug/alcohol/psychiatry stuff. In fact, since I see a doctor so rarely, there's a lot of crap in the mandatory package I simply do not need...but I don't have a choice, thus neither does my insurer, so all of these things must be covered for everyone, driving everyone's prices up. Again, loosening this list of mandatory services is more freedom, not less.

Anything you do to dismantle ObamaCare results in more freedom, not less. That's a simple fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2017, 02:46 PM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,611,728 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstarling View Post
There were big Price Increases in years leading up to the ACA. There were also many many substandard 'fake' policies being sold. The ACA was an attempt to, finally, try to make health care for all of us better.
Not a failure, just a first step.
It was a failure.

What is the biggest medical expenditure for seniors? Prescriptions.

What country has the most expensive prescriptions? The US.

Why didn't the ACA say that it's illegal to sell pharmaceuticals in the US for more than what they are sold in other countries?

Why didn't the ACA allow insurance to be sold across state lines?

Why didn't the ACA address the long, convoluted and financially excessive process of getting drugs and medical equipment approved?

The ACA was meant to get us to single payer while redistributing wealth in the process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2017, 02:46 PM
 
2,333 posts, read 1,488,949 times
Reputation: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Trump's EO does three things:
  • Ends illegal payments to insurance companies that are not authorized by the ACA
  • Loosens the requirements of what plans must cover to make it easier for people, small companies, etc to get cheaper plans by only paying for things they want instead of some blanket federal mandate
  • begins the process of allowing insurance to be sold across state lines.
All of these things constitute more freedom, not less.

The payments Obama was making to insurers violates the ACA, the separation of powers and the last federal curt to decide on the matter. That it took Trump this long to wave the pen on that nonsense is annoying, but he is finally getting around to it. The payments to insurers under section 1402 were never supposed to come from Congress, and no authorization for that spending has ever come from the Legislative Branch. Basically, for Trump to be doing his whole "faithful execution of the laws" bit in his job description, he should have ended those unauthorized subsidies the day he took office.

The loosening of requirements is a huge win for the average consumer. I should not be required to carry coverage that I do not want. I do not need any of the mandatory coverage for children, female stuff, or ay of the drug/alcohol/psychiatry stuff. In fact, since I see a doctor so rarely, there's a lot of crap in the mandatory package I simply do not need...but I don't have a choice, thus neither does my insurer, so all of these things must be covered for everyone, driving everyone's prices up. Again, loosening this list of mandatory services is more freedom, not less.

Anything you do to dismantle ObamaCare results in more freedom, not less. That's a simple fact.
I agree with the spirit of ACA but that being said I think its fatal mistake is the required services. I think that should've been left to the market. I think a car-maker should be totally entitled to build a car without brakes (provided they didn't sell it otherwise)... their fault if no one buys it and the market forces them to include it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2017, 02:49 PM
 
34,278 posts, read 19,368,360 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Exactly which law forbids hospitals from taking action to collect that money?

The law says they must be given treatment not that hospitals must provide it for free.
If they can't pay it, its free to them, but at a MUCH higher cost to everyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2017, 02:50 PM
 
2,333 posts, read 1,488,949 times
Reputation: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
It was a failure.

What is the biggest medical expenditure for seniors? Prescriptions.

What country has the most expensive prescriptions? The US.

Why didn't the ACA say that it's illegal to sell pharmaceuticals in the US for more than what they are sold in other countries?

Why didn't the ACA allow insurance to be sold across state lines?

Why didn't the ACA address the long, convoluted and financially excessive process of getting drugs and medical equipment approved?

The ACA was meant to get us to single payer while redistributing wealth in the process.
The bolded items, while I believe are necessary, would've been impossible to do as part of ACA. That would fundamentally change our IP, medical standards, and a host of other regulations. I don't even think Trump would be able to make those sweeping changes given the huge lobbies out there. Though on the topic of regulating pricing... IDK, that's a slippery slope. I don't think the gov't should be telling companies how much they can charge and where (including what ACA did).

Insurance across state lines... insurance companies have already said that's a non-factor and they don't care about that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2017, 02:50 PM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,611,728 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
If they can't pay it, its free to them, but at a MUCH higher cost to everyone else.
So, should the government force every person to get a Visa card to offset the losses from those who don't pay their Visa bills?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2017, 02:55 PM
 
2,333 posts, read 1,488,949 times
Reputation: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Exactly which law forbids hospitals from taking action to collect that money?

The law says they must be given treatment not that hospitals must provide it for free.
The problem is, if the person can't pay, it's just not worth it for the hospital to spend the legal fees to squeeze water from a rock. They don't get anything just by ruining the customer's credit... they're still out the original fees, plus thousands to hundreds of thousands in legal fees.

You are seeing hospitals increasingly demand payment before care but I think it's the catastrophic ER care that's running them dry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:24 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top